http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/19/ahmadinejad.ground.zero/index.html

He hasn't exactly been warm to us. I have no problem with him being denied access to Ground Zero.

Ditto.

I say, let him visit ground zero, on one condition: we erect a crane 100 stories up and let him go up on the top and re-enact falling out of one of the towers, so he can know for a few brief seconds what a victim of a terrorist attack feels plunging to the ground. He can take his wreath with him. If they can recover it after he falls, sell it on ebay and donate the proceeds to the 9/11 families.

Andrew

The guy's a holocaust denier, an anti-semite and wants nukes so he can destroy anything non-Muslim.

Other than that, I'm sure he's a swell guy.

The Herbster

Is it just me or are his eyes too close together???
He reminds me of a cartoon character....

I think Holocaust deniers and those that believe a 9/11-Iraq connection are equally dishonest.

VERY well said Vit.

Once more you're dissing the American public, because a very large segment of the voting population believes in a 9/11-Iraq link.

Your arrogance will only help the GOP, so I hope you continue to slam voters.

Herb

Fox news viewers, nearly all of them.

The Iraq war was about OIL and PROFIT.

I hope those voters get so slammed, they stay home.

Herb said>>>
because a very large segment of the voting population believes in a 9/11-Iraq link.

That's because FAUXNews sold them a lie. Even DUHbya himself said there is NO direct link to Iraq and 9/11!!!! Do you have your head so far up your butt that you can't hear???

"because a very large segment of the voting population believes..."

Whether or not a so-called large segment believes a 9/11-Iraq link exists (and I challenge you to provide a source that shows anything but a significant minority) has no bearing on whether or not it's true. What does have a bearing are the fact of the record that state NO LINK. The facts are the facts, and your position is fiction, as usual.

OUCH!
Vit...
Be ready for Herbs come back with an EXTREME RIGHT whack job webpage that has Saddam having lunch with Clinton 3 days before 9/11. Or that Sean Insannity is the second coming of Christ.
You know... The tinfoil had crowd.

Herb said - " Once more you're dissing the American public, because a very large segment of the voting population believes in a 9/11-Iraq link. "

Are you part of that segment?

---

quote:

Herb @
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 5:17 pm:

"Many Americans still believe in an Iraq-9/11 connection and I happen to be one of them. "

---

Darn right I believe there's an Iraq-9/11 connection.

"...and I challenge you to provide a source that shows anything but a significant minority..."

I never said it was a majority. But let's see....4 in 10 Republicans believe this is true and more than 1 out of 4 democrats....

Tin hat, indeed. Actually, the only tin hats around here are followers of moveon.commie

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= 1003638490&imw=Ywww.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6859681?IADID=Search-www.mercuryne ws.com-www.mercurynews.com&nclick_check=1

Herb

Wait a minute, Herb. You are making no sense to me. On one hand, you are pointing Vitalogy to an established minority and outright saying that their beliefs should be taken into consideration when establishing policy. I mean, you are calling them " voting population." You are saying that no matter if they are right or wrong, they should be pandered to in some form. Why?

THEN I ask you if you are a member of that segment - that same segment that believes in a 9/11 - Irag connection. To the degree you are implying. You say, enthusiastically and with pride " Yes! "

But THEN, to prove your point(?) you cite a story that says there IS no connection.

So you are saying that you believe something you know is wholly false. You KNOW it is. Yet you spout it as if it is true. Even though you know it's not.

Herb, my man, THIS is why you get called a troll. When you start saying stuff out of both sides of your mouth, it makes you look very weak. Your desire to be viewed as SO strong becomes so transparent that it takes away your ability to reason. That is exactly what you are doing here.

Andrew,

You know he is just going to use this to say to his people that he wanted to pay his respects to people that lost their lives and the Zionists wouldn't let him. This is all a game and we don't ever do well at winning the little points with him.

I say let him go to pay his respects outside the fences and do not allow him to place anything anywhere in the city. That way you give him what he wants and he looks compassionate to his people, we look compassionate and he doesn't get that upper hand.

I don't think we need to look any particular way to this moron except angry. Why would we want to help him look compassionate to his people? What we want him to look like to his people is the asshole he is so they'll throw him out.

That would be like taking Hitler to a concentration camp.

He can pay his respects in his own country if he feels that strongly about it. Build a monument. Heck, build two towers. Go ahead.

"So you are saying that you believe something you know is wholly false."

Wrong.

Check the source: CBS News, the former home of Dan Rather. Emmy award winning reporter Bernard Goldberg worked closely with Dan Rather for many years and blew the lid off CBS's slanted coverage in his best-selling expose' "Bias."

CBS is like John Kitzhaber or the ACLU. Once you've determined their left-leaning agenda, go in the opposite direction.

Herb

So...even if George W. Bush himself says there was no proven connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 (which he has, by the way) you're still going to believe there was?

Sure.

It may not be proven as of yet. That doesn't concern me.

My reasoning is that terrorists oft work in concert.

Fidel wasn't able to do much without Russia. Why would we expect Saddam to do much without much bigger backing, or at least without coordination with others?

Herb

But Herb, you linked a story that said it was FALSE. Why did you link THAT story?

Herb said - "It may not be proven as of yet. That doesn't concern me."

Yeah. You just have a hunch. Is this the part that I, like you always do, invoke the " But you don't have some kind of security clearence..."?

Wayne, you are ignoring facts on all levels because if it were true, it would make you sound in-the-know or smart. That's a risk that pays ZERO dividends for you. Only you though. You just have bad judgment. Your pride clouds your ability to reason. Admit it. You are unlucky when it comes to hunches. Your view is too narrow and biased to make a true statement on this topic any longer.

I can't make this stuff up. But you can?

I'll pass.

Weak.

"Why did you link THAT story?"

It provided numbers that even this group wouldn't question, since it was from leftist CBS.

Just because I disagree with the biased reportage doesn't mean I can't use their artificially low numbers. Besides, I didn't feel like searching for a lengthy period of time, only to have liberals pooh-pooh it without regard to the facts.

Darned if you cite liberal sources, darned if you don't cite liberal sources. So why worry about it?

Herb

Herb said>>>
Tin hat, indeed. Actually, the only tin hats around here are followers of moveon.commie

And NOBODY! I repeat again and again NOBODY has EVER said they indorse MoveON on his messageboard!

But the story goes against what you are saying. Are you just now citing truth and calling it a lie or are you citing lies and calling it truth?

Geeze. Cherry pick much? That has got to be to worst example of support I have ever seen from you. You cal it a lie, but use it to support your point?

I've seen spin. But not like that from you.

Lame. Weak.

You lost this one Herb. Take your lumps.

Freudian slip a coupla posts above CJ?

Still waiting for Herb to show us whom on this board supports MoveOn.org.......

Trixter, when someone supports all of the same principles and issues as MoveOn.Org, that's tacit support.

Trix, do you realize that you are helping Deane, Herb and all conservatives to demonize MoveOn.org? It doesn't matter if no one or everyone supports them, or agrees with their politics, or anything. There is no reason anyone has to apologize for supporting in any way MoveOn.org - same with any anti-abortion group, or any pro-choice group, or whatever. First Amendment rights (freeedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition) are for everyone, and no one needs to apologize for exercising them.

Herb seems only to read the "freedom of religion" part and ignore the rest. I take that back - freedom of religion for Herb means that people have the freedom to be any kind of fundamentalist Christian they want to be.

Edselehr you touch on a good point. The past two Presidential elections the far right was able to keep abortion and gay marriage as the only real issues facing America today. They used the media to it's fullest extent and Karl Rove was simply a genius. Without Rove there is no Bush Presidency.

I think now people are wising up even those who supported Bush twice.

Along that line, those whom Bush counted on as support for his Iraq policy are dissing him big time. Condoleezza Rice was recently snubbed by the Pope.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092007P.shtml

Interesting -- and sad -- that folks of faith, who occupy high places in government or church, get into such complicated dynamics when it comes to whether or not to converse with each other.

"Condoleezza Rice was recently snubbed by the Pope."

Being snubbed by the pope is startling news? He recently snubbed many millions of non-catholic Christians.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece

Oh the pope talks a good game of Christian unity, but when it comes down to it, it's still all about power. It's a badge of honour to be snubbed by such ignorant and unbiblical arrogance, even if the pope is sometimes correct, as in being pro-life. I'm just glad I don't carry water for the guy.

Herb

Herb-
Sadly you're right. But wouldn't it be a breath of fresh air if two people of faith in high powered positions didn't have to play this kind of game?

Condi is woman of faith (Presbyterian...so she's not all bad) with an opportunity to sit with the Pope. We can be so stubborn.

Edsel said>>>>
Trix, do you realize that you are helping Deane, Herb and all conservatives to demonize MoveOn.org? It doesn't matter if no one or everyone supports them, or agrees with their politics, or anything. There is no reason anyone has to apologize for supporting in any way MoveOn.org - same with any anti-abortion group, or any pro-choice group, or whatever. First Amendment rights (freeedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition) are for everyone, and no one needs to apologize for exercising them.

Wow! Thanks for that... Very well put.

Guys, guys, guys, why did this get out of hand?

If there is one thing we can — from extreme right to extreme left — all agree on, it is that the leader of Iran who also lead the takeover of our embassy in 1979 should not be allowed near Ground Zero.

Iran's president is a holocaust-denier whilst his country actively assists in the killing of our soldiers.

Given all that, the only thing that surprises me is how Columbia University would bring him on campus.

Herb

Like I said, Holocaust deniers and believers of a Iraq-9/11 link are one in the same.

I've taken a hypocrtie oath to never call anyone a hypocrtie, or a hypocrite or a hippopotomus, or a hypoteneuse........

"...Holocaust deniers and believers of a Iraq-9/11 link are one in the same."

Such astounding ignorance.

6 million Jews died in the holocaust.

Iraq was a terrorist state and 9/11 was carried out by terrorists. Terrorists oft work in concert and both of these entities shared the common goal of doing everything possible to bring down America.

Come to think of it, now you have something in common with Iran's president: Deny, deny, deny.

Herb

No, such astounding ignorance is claiming something that isn't true, which is exactly what you're doing, whilst providing links that clearly debunk your "hunch".

You can't make this stuff up!

Herb, so what was it that Saddam Hussein or any of Iraq's citizens did to contribute, specifically, to 9/11? If they are so obviously involved, name the obvious involvement.

Chickenjuggler, that's a fair question.

I'm not saying the link is currently provable beyond all reasonable doubt. That's still not clear. But these two terrorist organisations shared the same agenda. Ferreting out any links may take time.

Last I heard, there were mounds and mounds of documents in Arabic that STILL haven't been translated. Add to that Saddam's penchant for secrecy and his murdering of witnesses, and there you have it.

I'm simply saying it would not surprise me one bit if there was a link. If there wasn't, excuse me whilst I don't cry for such an evil person like Saddam. The guy was a terrorist and he murdered thousands upon thousands of innocents. Meanwhile, the impotent UN fiddled while the Kurds were gassed, and Uday and Quesay laughed during their bloodthirsty and torturous reign.

Herb

There wasn't a connection. There isn't a connection.

Done.

"Add to that Saddam's penchant for secrecy..."

Thank goodness our current administration is so transparent that the American public knows everything it is doing.

I notice that AGAIN, Herrbocrite only refers to the Jews killed in the Holocaust.

Why is it that he never mentions the other 3-5 million PEOPLE killed, you know; the gays, the gypsies, the Soviet POWs, the disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, and political prisoners?

"Herrbocrite..."

It's always so obvious when leftists have no facts, since it's always the same old same old. Name call.

Classic.

Prattle on.

Herb

Herb, when it comes to the claim of an Iraq-9/11 connection, it's YOU that has no facts. Hunches don't cut it in the real world.

The only problem isn't Rush Limbaugh. It's the left's rush to judgement.

What are you going to say if a stack of yet-to-be translated documents proves you wrong?

Herb

For a guy that's real firm in his religous beliefs, I find your statement rather funny. You seem to pick and choose what to be skeptical about in order to maintain your charade of beliefs.

Naw, I simply take terrorists, who wish to kill me and you, seriously.

You can whistle in the dark and hope for the best if you want. I'd rather take terrorists at their word when they say they wish to cut our heads off.

Herb

Now you're changing the subject. Face it, there never is, and never was, ANY connection between Iraq and what occured on 9/11. I have no doubts Saddam broke a smile when hearing about it, but it has been documented and proven that there is no link.

Of course Saddam had nothing to do with it. He was busy preparing his Sunday School lessons for the following week.

"Naw, I simply take terrorists, who wish to kill me and you, seriously."

Then why aren't we attacking Saudi Arabia? All but two of the 9/11 terrorists were from there. How serious are you, really?

An excellent point. You have me there, Edselehr.

That simple fact of the 9/11 hijackers being mainly from Saudi Arabia is glaring.

From what I can see, we can either A. keep acting like they're our friends, B. cut our ties with them or C. invade.

Care to lay out a few good options? I could use a menu right about this time of night.

Herb

I'll tell you why we aren't attacking Saudi Arabia: It's because they own a significant part of our economy and they alone could bring our financial system down to it's knees if they so chose. In other words, they have us by the financial nuts.

If true, then I guess for now that narrows it down to option C.

Herb

Invade them and do what? Convert them to Democracy? What? Uh, you really think they ( not to mention neighboring countries ) would just sit by and let that happen?

Herb, do you want to big World War? You know, with everyone nuking each other and stuff. Do you want that? You sound like you REALLY like war.

If we're not pre-emptive, it's Hitler...or at least Stalin...all over again.

Herb

How so? With Saudi Arabia, I mean. Are they invading someone that I don't know about?

But really, we should invade them and do what exactly? Occupy the country so we can control their money somehow? What would be the goal in invading them?

That's a simple question.

Why does pre-emptive matter? With the scale of war that would be wrought by some of the ideas brought forth here, would anyone care who fired first? Remember, Japan was being "pre-emptive" at Pearl Harbor too.

How so?

When you say:

"Herb, do you want to big World War? You know, with everyone nuking each other and stuff."

I'm not worried about Saudi Arabia. However, I am concerned about radical terrorist states pooling their resources to get nukes.

Therefore, you have to be like the Israelis and take out the nuke development capability, a la Osiris.

Herb

So we invade Saudi Arabia to take out their terrorists? That's the reason you think we should invade Saudi Arabia?

"If we're not pre-emptive, it's Hitler...or at least Stalin...all over again."

Ummm may I remind you that Hitler was pre-emptive with his moves on most of the rest of Europe. His pre-emptive strike against Poland is what officially started World War II. Japan's strike on Pearl Harbor? Pre-emptive. And while Stalin's power grab post-World War II was not pre-emptive, his grasp on Eastern Europe and the Iron Curtain certainly reminds one of the current situation in Iraq.

Do you REALLY want to compare the Bush administration's imperialistic ideologies to those of Hitler, or Stalin? C'mon Herb, REALLY?!? And you find this somehow ACCEPTABLE?!?!?

It's just fear based thought. Not rational.

"So we invade Saudi Arabia to take out their terrorists?"

I gave THREE options, a, b & c.
I'm not hearing any options from the left.

Herb

Center field plan......
Precision air strikes at designated military targets, maybe Army Rangers dropped in to assist then lifted back out, and none of our guys, alive or dead, gets left behind!

Air drop Herb in at night.

He converts them all to Christianity with his overwhelming powers of persuasion.

Problem solved.

Best Plan Ever! I'll chip in for the FedEx box!

"Center field plan...... "

I like it.

Textbook operation out of Richard Marcinko's 'Rogue Warrior' Seal Team Six playbook.

Or we could simply unleash the left's nattering nabobs of negativism. Their incoherent utterances would drive the terrorists crazy.

Herb

The tosser of fowl said - "So we invade Saudi Arabia to take out their terrorists?"

Herb said - "I gave THREE options, a, b & c.
I'm not hearing any options from the left. "

Right. I know. I read your THREE options and you said option C was the only one you could see for now. I assumed you meant it in a way like " Well, that only leaves option C as a VIABLE one." Is that right? I don't see Option C as a viable option for any stated goal. That's where we disagree. In fact, I'm still stuck on what the goal would be. But as usual, you jump ahead, sans goal, and start talking about solution.

But OK. When you start saying things like " That's a fair question " ( Translation; I have no answer because answering it would take some logic and once I start down that path, my ideas or desires fall apart in public. And I am not willing to admit that in public ). Or " I gave THREE suggestions. I'm not seeing any from the left." ( Translation; I know my ideas are not feasable and borderline rediculous. I need help in shifting the argument to something I can wrap my head around. War is my fall-back position. I'll go with that until I hear something better. ) then I know you you are on the ropes. And Herb, that's a good thing for you to feel. It shows that you are human and don't have all the answers.

Me either.

But if I chose to try and solve the problem like you do, I can do that. I can name an infinate amount of rediculous solutions too. But I would rather think about more of the aspects of each solution than you choose to. You LOVE the opportunity to flex our military might ( even though that's a HUGE part of the problem; It is not as mighty as you try and sell us. And frankly, if we were to invade Saudi Arabia, it would take a draft ) so since you already dismissed option A and B, leaving only C, C has fallen apart too. Leaving you with NO options.

And given the current set of circumstances regarding Saudi Arabia, even thought that's a tough pill to swallow, you and I are just going to have to deal with that.

No viable solutions right now.

Yet, I will take a stab at it;

Throw every dollar that it would cost us to invade Saudi Arabia and instead develop an infrastrcture that would make us not need Saudi Arabia's oil. Let our own oil industry sell it to ourselves. Create a whole new economy built around being 100% self-sustaining. Whatever that takes. Solar, electric, whatever...corn! ( lol - funny, I know...corn. Ahem. ).

There. That's my solution.

And a fine solution it is.

IMHO, we've really screwed the pooch in two key areas:

moving the production of things outside the country really only has helped large corporations, who rather than pay taxes to help build out more public infrastructure are happy to build it and have us pay them for it

,and

not having an aggressive program to maintain ongoing infrastructure builds.

We have been resting on an excellent effort that came about with the New Deal. I've been thinking about this, jobs and our ability to add value and compete.

The money we spent to do the build out helped keep people employed and created something that we all could exploit.

There is no free lunch however.

Today we are all about the exploitation and that gravy train is coming to an end.

If Iraq teaches us anything, it's that securing other resources is damn expensive! That alone justifies a strong domestic policy, aimed right at build outs that leverage what we have.

We have people and we have resources here. From that we generate wealth and thus compete.

Going forward, I don't think an information and service based economy is going to be viable for us, unless we manage to get others to legislate it into being!

And that's where all the trade agreements are kind of headed. Others do the grunt work, while we manage and provide information, research, etc...

That's like always being the idea guy, with no ability to execute! I've been there plenty of times. The same thing always happens. Others, who do have the ability to execute on the idea, end up with the real wealth, while the idea guy ends up either generating more ideas, or is just out of the picture totally.

Best case, idea guy stays involved, but really does not have control, nor can really gain from the effort, unless idea guy brings something substantial to the table.

We no longer lead in technology, manufacturing and education. What's left?

"Would you like fries with that, sir?"

IMHO, the oil gravy train is coming to an end. That is why we are doing Iraq. This matter will come up again and again, and it's a global problem!

Should we do this kind of build out, research, and development, we once again will lead and be able to seriously benefit from the effort.

And those same multi-nationals, bitching about taxes will have some new stuff to exploit and the cycle begins again!

This is good, it's American and it's the right path forward, IMHO.

Contrast that to the constant squabbling over a diminishing resource. What's gonna happen as that resource really diminishes? Will everything just stop, people die, etc?

Maybe. But the more likely scenario is that somebody will do the work required to move forward. Whoever that is will accomplish exactly what we did, thus putting them in the leadership position. With that position comes their influence on the world and not ours.

If you are an American, seeing how we changed the world for the better, really should give you cause to pause and wonder if we want to give that up!

I sure don't. We've got the best way to run nations and sovereignty because of it. If we lose this game, we lose on that score too.

Another way to look at it. One sees their job prospects going away. These days, that's a lot of us. Or perhaps one ends up needing more, or something. What to do?

Borrow to put the problem off?

Make investments in ones own self to mitigate the problem, or maybe just make it go away?

Sell what one has?

This is where we are right now, as a nation.

War is not sustainable. That's clear from both history and current events. That leaves selling or making self investments.

If we sell, we lose what makes us American because we lose control. If we invest, we keep control and new means and methods mean new wealth for everyone, including those just thinking of the here and now, this quarter, etc...

Good call CJ. I'll second that solution in a heartbeat.

...think about how we continue war, in debt and unable to really make things?

What's the end game there?

If we must go then just go long enough to take care of business then leave. Kind of like sex and a one night stand. Stalk your prey, execute your plan, penetrate and score, then make a strategic withdrawl before you have to meet the parents!

Lets call this the "Bill Clinton Plan"! Only with a better clean-up strategy when finished!

While I like your analogy, it doesnt apply.

Start with a couple of basic facts, irag is in an area of US national interest.

The US can not allow an a disruption of commerce in the area.

The united States currently loses about 30 thousand people a year, because we won't change our transportation system. The US transportation system is based on reasonably cheap oil.

With that as a given, our military forces exist for 2 reasons, 1. protect the US from a hostile attack. 2. protect US interests wherever they are.

Iraq was, and would be again if we left, a threat to continued commerce in the region.

I am perfectly willing to pay an increase of $3.00 on gas, with the money being used to shore up Social Security, and modify our transportation system, which in about 20 years, would remove Iraq from our area of national interest. Until we do that, we have no choice, but to secure our supply lines with force of arms.

"Start with a couple of basic facts, irag is in an area of US national interest."

OK. I agree. But probably for different reasons. Since you brought it up, what is our national interest there? Specifically.

"The US can not allow an a disruption of commerce in the area."

What commerce?

"The united States currently loses about 30 thousand people a year, because we won't change our transportation system."

Loses them to what that is the fault of an unchaged transportation system?

We don't need to commit a large scale invasion and then have to have americans pay for rebuilding a country that was in shambles before we got there. Take out the military targets and get the hell out. Let them clean up their own damn messes!